I’ve come across this trope so many times that I realize people are actually falling for it… people (I presumed) who have great difficulty comprehending the written word. After all, I know that even in my country of Canada with its high standing in comparative public education achievements, nearly a third of the population is functionally illiterate. So it’s no surprise to find those who suffer from this unnecessary problem may have difficulty grasping the well written explanations describing why it’s a good thing to criticize ideas and doctrines that have profoundly negative effects in the public domain. And it requires a similar kind of illiteracy to fall for this lie that islamaphobia – an irrational fear of islam – is driven by racist motives rather than good reasons based on compelling evidence.

As if this willful blindness to the very real danger to our secular principles islam contains isn’t bad enough, these people who criticize us – those who have the bad manners to point out why islam requires robust and public critcism – fail to see the obvious: what is truly disturbing is how easily this blindness, this abject stupidity to blame the messenger for the message, morphs into support for the trope that any and all criticism of the doctrine that empowers islam to be so dangerous in reality is really racism in action.

What is remarkable is that this blatant lie is so easily embraced by those who can read, who can comprehend the written word, who can understand why this misrepresentation and misapplication of what the criticism is all about matters. And to add insult to injury, those who promote and extend this dangerous trope seem to suffer no qualms to attribute the real danger to be those of us who have the moral fortitude and intellectual integrity to point out why the doctrine of islam in particular is so dangerous to us all by standing contrary to the foundational principles that support the liberal secular democracies we have inherited, namely, the New Atheists.

The doctrine of islam is the teachings of koran. If you ask any muslim a specific, straight forward question like this, “Do you believe the koran is the perfect word of god?” be prepared for the fundamentalist answer: “Yes.” This answer does not come only from some fringe element, some extreme radical group of the religion, but the mainstream, from the average muslim. If pressed about what constitutes the difference between a good muslim and a poor one, you will find out from the muslim that how closely the koran is followed determines this status. Why we delude ourselves to think that there will be some maturation of this mainstream fundamentalist thinking with exposure to western secular values is simply as mystifying as it is foolish and dangerous. (The latest evidence is from a trio of high school graduates – who classmates describe as normal and nice and typical – from London, ON who converted to islam, and then participated in mass murder in an attack on gas workers in Algeria.) The motivating factor for this travesty of misdirected young lives was islam. It was not New Atheists!

Those muslims who speak publicly about the evolution of the religion from its violent origins to become what it is not, namely, a tolerant, moderate, living doctrine that respects the rights and freedoms of its members similar to liberalized christianity and judaism, are not speaking on behalf of the religion as good muslims and they know it. The listener – eager to show common cause in the name of secular values like tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others – is ripe for the picking. Such muslims who speak publicly about islam, as if it were an equivalently tolerant religion to those who wish it were, are not moderate muslims at all and do not represent the majority: they are poor muslims by definition… unless they are lying to your face in order to promote by stealth the advancement of islam and shari’a into the public domain. This technique is called taqiyya (for anyone unaware of its religious approval) and it describes why and on what koranic authority this intentional deceit (that fools well meaning but gullible people in secular democracies) is the right thing to do for a good muslim!

At the end of the day, the point of the doctrine of islam is to live a godly life, and by faith this means living under god’s law, which is not compatible with either the secular principles of tolerance and respect showered on its adherents in the West. This law is shari’a and it is incompatible in authority with your individual rights of autonomy, your individual freedoms for legal equality, your secular principles of tolerating and accommodating religious differences, your allegiance to your nation. Shari’a is incompatible with the foundational principles of western liberal secular democracies. These are the facts and not some imaginary racist assertions meant to to slander.

But don’t take my word for. Find out for yourself (first by reading and then by asking real muslims) why claims about the peacefulness of the religion of islam are not true in practice by good muslims. Ask about their interpretation about the verse of the sword, the one used to overturn all the previous koranic claims about promoting peace and love, when defending the faith (or watch a short video about it here). Find out for yourself why islam and shari’a are not like the doctrines of any other liberalized religion but stand firmly against any social advancement past the seventh century morality that has been encoded in the koran. Check out ongoing violence done in the name of islam and ask yourself how and why this is any different from other religions. In other words, stop pretending that tolerating and respecting freedom of religion means that it is only right and proper for you to respect islam. By doing so, you are threatening the very values of tolerance and respect you are self-righteously exercising!

Now that we have compelling evidence from reality that the doctrine of islam is incompatible with western secular values, how much sense does it make – and who does it serve – to vilify New Atheists for talking about this compelling evidence in the public domain?

You guessed it: it serves only to grant more cover for stealth jihad. How can any literate person who supports western secular values be so stupid as to be intolerant of much needed criticism towards the doctrine of islam? Well, I think there are four possibilities: illiterate, ignorant, delusional, complacent, or complicit.

For those who are illiterate, get help.

For those who are ignorant, open your mind and eyes and ears and learn.

For those who are delusional, respect reality. Recognize that your beliefs – especially religious beliefs – do not create reality but require adjudication by it if you wish to have them respected.

For those who are complacent, who wish that these inherent conflicts between faith-based beliefs and our valued principles would just go away, wake up. Recognize the danger and join in the criticism or get out the way.

For those who are complicit, who try to lay the blame for islamic intolerance on some fringe element of it rather than the doctrine that empowers the whole, who will not think for themselves but go along with the charade that islam is a religion of peace and tolerance in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary, who will not see the danger to themselves – to their own legal welfare and that of their neighbours – or others, who allow their complicity to enable the advancement of islam and shari’a unimpeded by legitimate criticism, know that you are exposed for the ethical hypocrites and moral cowards you are.

As a shining example of what it is we face as New Atheists in this battle to get more of us to respect reality rather than faith-based beliefs about it, consider this exchange between one the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, Sam Harris, and the usually reasonable columnist Glenn Greenwald. I have extracted Sam’s final reply and added the bold for emphasis:

The idea that “new atheism” is a cover for a racist hatred of Muslims is ridiculous (and, again, crudely defamatory). I have written an entire book attacking Christianity. And do you know what happens when I or any of my “new atheist” colleagues criticize Christians for their irrational beliefs? They say, “Of course, you feel free to attack us, but you would never have the courage to criticize Islam.” As you can see, our Christian critics follow our work about as well as you do.

Needless to say, there are people who hate Arabs, Somalis, and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim societies for racist reasons. But if you can’t distinguish that sort of blind bigotry from a hatred and concern for dangerous, divisive, and irrational ideas—like a belief in martyrdom, or a notion of male “honor” that entails the virtual enslavement of women and girls—you are doing real harm to our public conversation. Everything I have ever said about Islam refers to the content and consequences of its doctrine. And, again, I have always emphasized that its primary victims are innocent Muslims—especially women and girls.

And for the money quote:

There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Your high school level of understanding as well as your ignorant and impotent rage is an inspiration to us all tildeb.

One of my congregants just finished up a 8 year stint for an NGO whose soul purpose is establishing governance of law in Afghanistan. We’re talking medieval levels of illiteracy. Less than 8% of the Afghan population is literate, this includes the mullahs. So while they claim the Koran is God’s word, they’ve never actually read it to test it. We’re talking about the backwaters of the world with the lowest education levels since the middle ages the the best you can come up with is your usual:

“Don’t blame the new atheists about this! We’re innocent!”

This goes beyond any one religion into geo-political history. Afghanistan was once on it’s way to becoming highly developed between the world wars, and then what happened? It’s the same story with Iran. Neo-Liberal economics happened. Land grab between competing Western Empires happened. It’s the Enlightened, white west trying to impose it’s will on other parts of the world which has little to know understanding of the culture of the area before-hand.

This post reeks of colonialism and an a-historical perspective. You do realize that history is indeed a science, might want to crack a book or two on the subject before speaking on it.

And the best you have to offer is: “For those who are illiterate, get help. For those who are ignorant, open your mind and eyes and ears and learn.”

Wow. Powerful stuff. That’s really awesome. Great advice here…[/sarcasm] So how are you helping this? Heading to Afghanistan to help establish rule of law? Going to Syria to promote literacy? Going to Iraq to help ease tribal and inter-religious strife between the Sunnis and Shi’ite? Do you know the difference between a Sunni and Shi’ite? What case can you present that would get these cultures on board for learning, becoming literate, and opening their minds, eyes, and ears?

You seemed to have missed my point, which is hardly surprising given the rectal quality of your commentary insights, so I’ll spell it out for you: this post addresses how liberals here in the West too often and too easily overlook the extremely threatening reality of real world effects caused by the practice of empowering the doctrine we call islam; instead of dealing with the incompatibility of the islamic doctrine with western secular values (like freedom of expression and freedom of religion), these misguided fools believe without evidence that these problems are to be blamed on the stridency and intolerance (in the form of racism) of New Atheists. This approach is complicit in covering up the problem inherent in incompatibility of the islamic faith with western secular liberal values while blaming the messenger for the message of danger. So it is to these liberals that my message is aimed: smarten up before you undermine your own rights and freedoms, and stop trying to keep your mind so open with the notion of boundless tolerance and respect of deepities that your brains fall out (although the warning obviously comes too late for you).

“So I see you answer the final question with a demonstrated ‘Yes’.”
-It wasn’t a yes or no answer, you dolt. Which question are you referring to?

“this post addresses how liberals here in the West too often and too easily overlook the extremely threatening reality of real world effects caused by the practice of empowering the doctrine we call islam ”
-Which makes this pile of shit you call a post a giant lover letter to colonialism. Congrats, you’re not only bigoted but justified in being one. And you’re not bigoted because you hate Arabs. You’re bigoted because you hate all forms of religion. Blaming religion is your favorite bailiwick. And like you, it’s short-sighted and simplistic. An easy scapegoat for the slackvist nimrod with an 8th grade understanding of science and no understanding of history outside of convention.

Islam isn’t the problem. Colonialism is. I’m all for western secular values yet those values aren’t bloodless. Manifest Destiny bullshit. Yet I try again to show you that you’re bigoted towards all things religion based on ignorance and you’ll throw out some other rabbit trail. Which proves Oliver Wendell Holmes’ point, “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”

” It’s the Enlightened, white west trying to impose it’s will on other parts of the world which has little to know [sic] understanding of the culture of the area before-hand [sic].”

So, it seems to have become a slander to refer to people as “enlightened” (this is actually a good thing), “white” (this is racism) and “west” or “western” (this is tribalism). I see this more and more these days. If someone falls into any of these categories, their opinions are automatically worthless in a discussion on world politics. This is childishness. So, can we only trust an “unenlightened” “non-white” (whatever that even means) “non-western” (whatever that really means) person to talk about world affairs?

The irony is that the people who throw out these statements (like you) are trying REALLY HARD to avoid being racist, yet the result is that the transform the world into a world of us verses them, where only “them” is allowed to have an opinion. Ridiculous.

Wow, TGA, could you sound any more white? I mean, I don’t know if you are, but goodness you reek of white priviledge.

Yes, you do have to know something about another culture or religion before you blast it. Esp. one far different from your own. There is no “doctrine of Islam” as depending on the branch/style of muslim, it’s understood and carried out differently. The style of Sufi Islam would have no qualms with western style secular democracy. Sunni, less so and definitely not if one is Shi’ite, Wahabi or Salafi. This understanding shows this post for what it is, a pile of crap. But one would have to know something of the multifaceted faith of Islam to actually see this.

I didn’t know that “white” was a slander. Now, before you start crying and saying “I didn’t say white was a slander,” wipe that tear away from you eye and listen. Yes, you did. If you replaced “could you sound any more white” with “could you sound any more black,” everyone would dismiss you as an outright racist. So what’s the difference? Do you think that it’s not racist because white people are superior? Perhaps you have some kind of white-envy. I personally don’t care about skin tone. “Racism is the arrogance of small differences.” So, once you start to view yourself as on a par with white people, maybe you will be able to calm down. What would be worse is if you are white. Then you’re a outright white racist. However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just a non-white person who envies white people.

Oh, and to answer the rest of your statement, all kinds of Islam are based on the Koran. The Koran is a childish book. Therefore, all forms of Islam are childish.

Z1G assures us bigots that, There is no “doctrine of Islam” as depending on the branch/style of muslim, it’s understood and carried out differently. The style of Sufi Islam would have no qualms with western style secular democracy. Apparently he has an extraordinarily short memory for such a self-reported academic expert and enjoys talking out of both sides of his mouth in his rush to misrepresent others before condemning them.

The doctrine of islam is the koran as the perfect word of god and its religious expression in law called sharia. I wrote that, ““Shari’a is incompatible with the foundational principles of western liberal secular democracies,” to which Z1G politely responded, “No shit, really? And it took you how long to figure this out?”

What a sweet guy. Always on target is our Z1G.

Yet Suffiism, as I’m sure our expert Z1G will attest, maintains a strict adherence to this religious law proscribed by the koran … so much so that its teachers tells us that the only way to arrive at sharia is to be suffi!

Not a problem for our ever willing professor to clarify. He will jsut ignore his own writing! Now Z1G tells us ignoramuses that this style of islam – that supports the very religious law that he himself admits is incompatible with western secular enlightenment values – would have no qualms with western style secular democracy.

And we’re the deluded ones?

Screw your head on straight and connect your brain before commenting again, Z1G. Your hypocrisy is tedious and responses disingenuous.

“Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)”
–Walt Whitman “Song of Myself”

Just doing more reading and talking with my muslim brothers and sisters about this POS post. They laughed and said, “Yeah, well people will hate anything they don’t know. Ignorance is a great divider. We love American and we’re muslim. These are not contradictions.”

As for your reading comprehension, and comprehension of all things religious tildeb, you are endlessly fascinating. When I wrote ” “Shari’a is incompatible with the foundational principles of western liberal secular democracies,” to which Z1G politely responded, “No shit, really? And it took you how long to figure this out?” That would pertain to those muslims seeking to establish Shari’a as the mode of law. Not all muslims do. This simple truth renders your post moot and evidence of your prejudice. My friends aren’t seeking this. Sufi’s don’t seek this, Sunnis are a mixed bag. Just see Spain 756-1036 C.E. But that would require both a reading of history and religion and you might break out in hives.

But I’m not ignorant about islam, Z1G. In your progressive mind, you insist that the truth must be incorrect. Did you ask those muslim brothers and sisters if they thought the koran was the perfect word of god? Did you? Of course you didn’t, because you were afraid of their honest answer. Did you ask them what defines a good muslim from a poor one? Did you? Of course you didn’t, because you were afraid of their honest answer. After all, if you actually cared about what’s true in this little matter – rather try to correct it! – you would have asked them and, if the answers were not as I described, you would be first in line to throw their answers in my face and prove I was full of shit. Yet you can’t seem to do this, can you? You can’t because you didn’t. You cannot ask these central questions because you won’t be able to blame me and my supposed ignorance if they give you the answers I say they will give you. And yet I know enough about islam to be quite confident that they – not I – will tell you what you insist must be incorrect. And that will put you in a pickle… one of your own making.

So go ahead, Z1G, and do try to be brave if even for a moment and dare to ask. If you receive answers that produce cognitive dissonance, I don’t think your head will explode. But it may be enough to get you off your high horse and start to realize that you are in no position to tell me I’m the ignorant one here when I have had the courage to have already asked these questions hundreds and hundreds of times to all kinds of muslims I have encountered in my professional and private life and the courage to hear the same answers I didn’t want to hear. Until you do this, Z1G, your opinions motivate you to be very much part of the problem pretending the incompatible is quite compatible and the real problem is with those of us who respect what’s true and not your corrected version of it.

Oh tildeb, there’s your prejudice coloring your world again… Thinking your objective… How sad. “Did you ask those muslim brothers and sisters if they thought the koran was the perfect word of god? Did you?”
-Yup. We have tons of discussions like that. However, unlike this one, they’re friendly. Being from a mixed race, half-latino, half-arab background gives you access to such communities. But you never thought to ask, you just plunge ahead with your assumptions which you don’t think you have. What irony!

Like Christians, some Muslims, of the progressive set answer “no” to this question. Surprised? “Well, they’re not real muslims” you’ll say. You’d be wrong. Again.

And your video’s definition of progressive is also wrong. It’s neither right nor left but forward, which ends up pissing off the right and left. Nor is it marxist. Nor does it try to silence any one… just point out your prejudice in making certain statements. Sure you can say them.. but I prefer you found it on something other than your prejudice which you have demonstrated time and time again. And once again, it’s not based on race, but on religion. Calling it a cancer, a disease, a danger, and such like… Your friend MUR had it right, “They’re people.”

your prejudice which you have demonstrated time and time again. And once again, it’s not based on race, but on religion. Calling it a cancer, a disease, a danger, and such like…

What I wrote was not what you present here. I did not call religion a cancer, you twit. I called it an affliction where beliefs are held to be equivalent to reality (which is exactly what you demonstrate over and over again, confusing what you believe to be true over and above what IS real). What I wrote was,

I’m as much a bigot against religion as I am against cancer. And strenuously so. But I’m as much a compassionate and caring person towards someone religious as I am towards someone with cancer. Religion, like cancer, can sometimes be overcome with the right treatment at the right time. But unlike those dealing with the lottery of cancer treatments, those dealing with their religious affliction can treat themselves if they can just learn to respect reality more than their beliefs about it.

This is not a prejudice, Z1G. I do not think it means what you think it means. Prejudice means a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. My opinion is not preconceived. It is based on compelling reasons. It is based on my actual experiences. Your use of the term is deceitful in that you use the term pejoratively to avoid having to deal directly with the point of my post by calling into question the content of my character. It is your tone, Z1G, that instigates a non friendly exchange from your opening: “Your high school level of understanding as well as your ignorant and impotent rage is an inspiration to us all tildeb.” Again, pretending that it is my character that is in question is owned by you and your beliefs alone. Until you stop empowering them to determine reality for you, which is an affliction you can overcome, you will continue to be disconnected from what’s true. And what’s true is that the standard by which muslims measure their piety is not a figment of my prejudicial imagination, namely, how closely they adhere in their daily lives to the teachings of the koran. I’m not making this up and you need to clarify the veracity of this claim with muslims you know so that my lack of character that you mistakenly believe empowers this post can be put aside as the irrelevant point it is. Their answer will help you understand why I am not claiming who is and is not a real muslim (again, your reading comprehension is highly questionable), but who is and is not a good muslim. Progressive and liberal muslims are all around us, Z1G. I don;t deny this at all because I know it’s true based on compelling evidence that aligns with personal experience. My point is that these folk are considered by other muslims to be less pious than those who adhere more strictly to the teachings of the koran. In other words, their effect on moderating the religion itself is marginalized because they are not pious enough to be comparatively considered good muslims to those who follow it more closely. This is why the religion itself is not like other religions open to moderation and liberalization: it is a fundamentalist doctrine that promotes fundamentalism and marginalizes moderation. In case you were unaware, this is a major problem, an impediment, a vice, and not a virtue in finding accommodation with Western secular liberal values. Until you can wrap your beliefs around this fact, your progressive opinions will continue to suffer the affliction of your mistaken beliefs.

Wow… not only did you go toward my prediction “Like Christians, some Muslims, of the progressive set answer “no” to this question. Surprised? “Well, they’re not real muslims” you’ll say. You’d be wrong. Again.” you try to blame in on religion itself! Nice job! It’s as if the fundamentalists are the “true and most pious” followers. I love it. Speaking of buying into the propaganda.

Most telling is this phrase “This is why the religion itself is not like other religions open to moderation and liberalization: it is a fundamentalist doctrine that promotes fundamentalism and marginalizes moderation.”
-Islam was quite the religion for progress, yawn, up until WWI. Why have they gone backwards and why has the fundamentalist doctrine arisen? These are the questions I urged you to look into in the first few comments. Following that trail will help you overcome your religious illiteracy and sticking to “what everybody knows.” If convention were true, then there would be no need for education or the scientific method. You’ve proven enough that your experience and what you “know to be true of Islam” is highly suspect.

Z1G, you’re falling for the propaganda by calling criticism of the doctrine of islam bigotry and colonialism… and probably whatever else it isn’t. So, yes, you’ve answered the yes or no question… whether you intended to or not. This is why you’re very much part of the problem all of us face as our secular rights and freedoms are undermined by the same attitude you present here; you’re just too focused on criticizing atheists on principle rather than trying to understand the legitimate points of criticism they raise than you are willing to defend our common rights from a common enemy.

In addition, you follow the same tedious response technique over and over again: assigning incorrect labels to others that you then criticize to be morally inferior to your own, which you attribute to your religious belief, and then elevate your social activity to be evidence for this superior attitude as if no one else does anything remotely worthwhile or equivalent, and then, when challenged on these assumptions, claim the cause is the educational inferiority of others. It’s really quite tedious because it’s so wrong (as in grossly inaccurate and misplaced in reality… not that you care). But you’ve yet to show any concern for what’s true independent of your interpreting everything to suit your beliefs first and foremost (as if the science of physics is dependent on the religious beliefs of a Newton! That’s so stupid, it burns. That’s like saying the morality of pedophilia is dependent on the religious beliefs of catholic priests!).

You continue to exhibit very poor reasoning skills, very poor comprehension skills, very poor explanatory skills, very poor social skills, and very poor critical thinking skills. You’re all over the board trying to target others with as negative a light as possible based only on your suppositions about them. What’s true (and what is meant to be expressed) plays some distant role in this mental masturbation you’re doing. But what is obvious is that you do not desire any discussion of the criticisms under review, do not desire to find out on what merit are the criticisms raised in response to your own points, do not desire anything but to pronounce your judgement that all and everyone is wanting in comparison to your own exalted (yet ever so humble) status, and that all lack what you deem essential to meet your expectations for any discussion to occur.

Your arrogance is matched only by your ranting.

Islam is a problem because it is a doctrine contrary to important secular values we share. It is not a problem because I’m a bigot or a colonialist. It’s a problem because the belief in the doctrine motivates neighbours who are muslims to try to reduce my rights and freedoms in the name of honoring their god. Calling me a racist – for pointing out this seditious activity (and the significant negative consequences for all of our shared rights and freedoms if it succeeds) while providing compelling evidence that the charge is true – does nothing to address the problem. That’s why such an opinion as yours is complicit in providing cover and tolerance for it. You have indeed bought the propaganda and you have indeed tried to blame others for it. That’s where all your arrogance and skewed interpretations have brought you: to act the gullible fool.

” So, yes, you’ve answered the yes or no question… whether you intended to or not. ”
-What the fuck?! What question? when you state: “So I see you answer the final question with a demonstrated ‘Yes'”?

My last question was: “What case can you present that would get these cultures on board for learning, becoming literate, and opening their minds, eyes, and ears?”
-Not a yes or no question. This is what I thought you were referring to, but upon second reading of your comment it back obvious to me that you didn’t read my comment at all, and thus selfishly referring to your own question from your post… which make sense, cause you’re selfish.

If it’s your question: “Are you falling for it?”

The answer would be no. You’re not Islamophobic, you’re religion-phobic and have equal bigotry for all things religions for no reason.

“you’re just too focused on criticizing atheists on principle rather than trying to understand the legitimate points of criticism they raise than you are willing to defend our common rights from a common enemy.” “Calling me a racist”
-No you twit. I called you a bigot not based on race, but based on religion. Read my words moron. I criticize you not for criticizing Islam but how and why you do.

You blame religion for everything. And thus Islam is the reason why they’re illiterate, ignorant and backwards. And the best you can offer is some bullshit ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ offering of ” “For those who are illiterate, get help. For those who are ignorant, open your mind and eyes and ears and learn.” Nope. Sorry. Gotta do better my pea-brained friend.

Islam invented zero, algebra and calculus while our ancestors were in the dark ages. After our dark ages we push them into their own. The key point was after WWI and that’s when the decline really took shape. History you ninny.

We in the West don’t know the type of grinding poverty, hopeless hunger, and everyday brutality. Your post shows your ignorance. It’ll take more than ‘getting help.’ It’s not about those “muslims to try to reduce my rights and freedoms in the name of honoring their god.” I don’t think so. How could they being in another country, oppressed and in throes of poverty? Or is it about muslims in your country? Our muslims aren’t attempting any of this, it’s the far-right Christians and the rabid atheists who can’t get along and only want their way.

Come on spooge-stain, if you’re so smart, offer up better solutions and critiques of the situation than just circling the wagon around your tribe.

Wow. You really are quite challenged when it comes to reading comprehension, aren’t you Z1G? My post referred to liberals here in the West, liberals who have difficulty reading, liberal swho are illiterate, liberals who are ignorant, liberals who are delusional, liberals who are complacent, liberals who are complicit. By missing this point, you rushed headlong into your first comment, which was entirely misdirected because it dealt with what you believed I was talking about – muslims in Afghanistan – and came up with accusations of colonialism. But that’s not what I was talking about, so in my first comment to you, I clarified exactly this. But, again and unsurprisingly, you missed the point and continued in your tired rant about how terrible people are who dare to criticize your educated opinions. This is what has raised the ire of people telling you to stop spewing and start reading for comprehension. Insulting them (and me) doesn’t help overcome your misunderstanding; shutting your mouth for a moment and paying attention to the criticism would have resulted in your further comments addressing the post rather than addressing your academically superior incorrect assumptions about it. In other words, Z1G, read for comprehension first and maybe, just maybe, you’ll better understand why many people arrive at the conclusion that religious belief in general and islamic belief in particular is a danger to our common rights and freedoms.

“…that religious belief in general and islamic belief in particular is a danger to our common rights and freedoms.”
-How? Aside from being philosophically incompatible, can you point and demonstrate how; right now Islam is “coming to get your rights?” Facism is philosophically incompatible and so is corporate personhood, but there hasn’t been a post on that.

And you’re missing my point: I’m no complacent liberal. I’m quite active, which is why I’m here questioning while you only seem to enjoy your “yes men” of Cedric and MUR. It’s why every post is the logical fallacy of begging the question. Is new atheism a cover for racist hatred of muslims? Of course not. It’s a cover for hatred of religion and religious persons which then spawns a hatred of muslims.

You can question me all you want, but you haven’t yet, you only go back to your same tired line of “religious belief is stupid/dangerous/moronic/icky and I don’t like it.” It takes a lot of ignorance of history to pull it off, but since you don’t know what you don’t know, you do it with such artistry.

And what’s bigotry? “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.” (via wiki). You don’t like religious people based solely on the fact they’re religious. And you’ve said in the past that, “It is this insidious religious assumption that makes a mockery of the Enlightenment value of self-authority, self-governance, self dominion.” ignoring where the value was spawned. And where the scientific method came from. So you ignore history based on bigotry.

Bigot. Bigot. Bigot. You reek of it. And MUR and Cedric can’t smell it cause they’re nose deep in it too.

If I thought for one moment you would reasonably consider my points, I would explain why attributing the rise of secularism from enlightenment values, which had to be fought tooth and nail and with blood to be taken from those who insisted religious authority was paramount, to some beneficent religious impetus is relativistic thinking at its worst… where black means white and up is really another kind of down. And this battle never ends, where far too many people living under secular law think an improvement would magically occur if we just returned to respecting the role for religious authority to determine our rights and freedoms (perhaps dictate is the better word because that continues to be the justification for all kinds of anti-secular sentiment in all kinds of public issues). But you don’t care about what’s true; you care only about your beliefs.

This lack of care is revealed when, time after time, you assume that your beliefs about others are true and make incorrect statements. You don’t care about correcting them to align with what’s true in reality. You state categorically that “It’s (New Atheism) a cover for hatred of religion and religious persons which then spawns a hatred of muslims,” and that I’m bigot because you believe I am “someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance.” The statements are true only in your mind, and not arbitrated by reality, only because you believe them to be true. And, again, anyone who declares such statements of belief to be false do so not because reality dictates them to be false, which it does, but because of an educational lack that you yourself do not suffer from. No matter what anyone can say, what evidence reality arbitrates to be true about it, you will maintain belief in your beliefs, which renders your input to the issue under review (that liberals do not correctly identify why the doctrine of islam is such a danger to all of us all and so give aid and comfort to those who seek to do us harm) to be be not just worthless but a part of the very problem under review.

I’m as much a bigot against religion as I am against cancer. And strenuously so. But I’m as much a compassionate and caring person towards someone religious as I am towards someone with cancer. Religion, like cancer, can sometimes be overcome with the right treatment at the right time. But unlike those dealing with the lottery of cancer treatments, those dealing with their religious affliction can treat themselves if they can just learn to respect reality more than their beliefs about it. I think, Z1G, you may have a terminal case.

“And this battle never ends, where far too many people living under secular law think an improvement would magically occur if we just returned to respecting the role for religious authority to determine our rights and freedoms (perhaps dictate is the better word because that continues to be the justification for all kinds of anti-secular sentiment in all kinds of public issues).”

Ahhh, now here’s an assumption. I want you to know history and see how religion can do some good, even if on accident. I think religious authority is an oxymoron as my own religion states “whoever wants to be great must be servant of all.” That’s my religion. Compassion. Kindness. Service. Now people can do that without religion and I get along with those great. It’s voices like yours which freak me out stating that religion must be treated like cancer. True bigotry.

I’m all for secular government which gives no religion credence over another but treats all equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or gender identification. It’s a great thing. But acting like “secular” means “rabidly anti-religious” is not what it means. Try as I might, I can’t get it through your thick skull.

Now Z1G, you have admitted in the past that you grant authority over your life to your god, that this granting by free will forms the basis for your religious belief. Now you’re trying to pretend that you honestly think ‘religious authority’ is an oxymoron. I have remained consistent throughout our exchanges that the secular principle of legitimate authority means that one has final authority over one’s life, and that this secular principle informs individual rights, individual freedoms, individual responsibility, and is then extended into the world to justify what we call ‘legitimate’ government – consent to be governed by the governed. You, naturally, want to attribute secularism and enlightenment values and the scientific method and all that is good in the world to religious authority, in the sense that religion – granting authority to god for one’s life – in your mind caused these results. The only way you can maintain both of these antithetical positions is to change the meaning of the word ‘religion’ to suit each position, in this case altering the meaning to be ‘compassion, kindness, and service’ none of which has fuck all to do with religious authority in ANY sense of the term. And that’s the point you refuse to admit, pretending that these results – exercising compassion, kindness, and service that have fuck all to do with religion and religious authority (but often attributed to it) – best represent the good religion does! This is an intentional misrepresentation you (and every religion in the world, it seems to me) fall back upon time and again to justify religious belief, as if it causes compassion, kindness, and service and so can be used in the assessed balance for the effect religious authority imposed on the public domain has. But it simply isn’t true. There is no evidence religious belief causes compassion, kindness, or service. These expressions for others are carried out by non believers as they are by the religious, showing that belief is not a requirement – not a causal factor – in the same way that secular principles and enlightenment values have no need for any relationship whatsoever (including the bizarre notion that religious belief was, is, or must be a causal factor for them) with religious belief or authority; they stand on their own individual merits independent of religion. This recognition is important to understand the argument against religious impositions in the public domain. Religious impositions are not helpful. They are not necessary. They divide people into sectarian camps. They interfere with exercising principles and values that must stand on their own independent merit. That’s why compassionate care done in the name of religious belief is less than compassionate care for its own sake. And introducing religious motivation into care as if it caused care can and sometimes does cause harm. This is completely unnecessary. So criticisms of this are warranted. That doesn’t mean that secularism is anti-religious; it means that those who support rights and freedoms and the value of enlightenment thinking and respect science need to also recognize that religion is not a causal factor the benefits in the public domain attributed to it, which eliminates the support for arguments for religious influence in the public domain.

I’m glad you find it inspirational, Z1G, but it’s cold criticism that you mistakenly believe is ‘rage’. It’s not. But, rest assured, I’m sure this won’t be the last time you mistake your belief for what’s true. Speaking of which, here’s another little gem of your ‘colonialism’ in action.

That was horrible. Few things can inspire me to acts of violence. That is one of them. A mob of religious animals. How can they look at the female members of their own family after that?
(puke)
Oh and fuck you ZIG. Fuck you and fuck them.

“So it’s no surprise to find those who suffer from this unnecessary problem may have difficulty grasping the well written explanations describing why it’s a good thing to criticize ideas and doctrines that have profoundly negative effects in the public domain.”

“As if this willful blindness to the very real danger to our secular principles islam contains isn’t bad enough…”,

“…those of us who have the moral fortitude and intellectual integrity to point out why the doctrine of islam in particular is so dangerous to us all by standing contrary to the foundational principles that support the liberal secular democracies we have inherited…”

“Shari’a is incompatible with the foundational principles of western liberal secular democracies. These are the facts and not some imaginary racist assertions meant to to slander.”

“…we have compelling evidence from reality that the doctrine of islam is incompatible with western secular values…”

tildeb tries again..”this post addresses how liberals here in the West too often and too easily overlook the extremely threatening reality of real world effects caused by the practice of empowering the doctrine we call islam”

zero1ghost” Which makes this pile of shit you call a post a giant lover letter to colonialism.

No, you moron. “Colonialism” has nothing to do with it. Learn English.

Islam isn’t the problem. Colonialism is.

Gibberish. Why do you magically want to talk about “colonialism”? That’s not the topic of the post.

Tildeb: “Islam is a problem because it is a doctrine contrary to important secular values we share. It is not a problem because I’m a bigot or a colonialist.”

Is an act being passed in Canada which requires y’all to switch to shari’a law? How are ‘them muslims’ a threat to you at the present moment? Oh, they’re not? You’re just picking on a minority group cause they have differing views than you do? Oh yeah, you’re right Cedric, that’s totally not bigotry.

ZIG: You are missing the point completely, this post is about people being apologetic for Islam, by trying to pick fault in a religious texts that encourage people to undertake the appalling crimes that are done in the name of the religion by people who follow the religion.

It’s about sticking up for secular rights of all individuals regardless of their religion, race or nationality – because a woman in Iran really doesn’t want to be stoned to death any more than any other woman (Muslim or otherwise) in any other country. The issue is therefore a problem with religion, its scripture, what it teaches, the culture it infects, how it is taught and those who act out its commands in particular those that run state justice systems according to its primitive teachings.

Consider this:

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

If I take that scripture literally and start to murder gays on the basis of what this bible passage says – then one way of interpreting my actions is that I am being faithful to the Lord’s word as written in the holy text.

The other way it can be interpreted is less literal; OK I shouldn’t kill gays, because killing people is bad and not Christian – Jesus would really like me doing it would he? So how about I enter a personal contract with the Lord (silly I know because he doesn’t actually exist – but I digress) how about a compromise?

If gays ask me for a job, instead of killing them, I just won’t offer them a job; if gays want to be my friend – I might just ignore this friendship rather than shoot them; if gays want equal marital rights I should object to this publicly and encourage others to do so, because this is not as bad as raising mob and having them all flogged to death. This is clearly the right thing to do because clearly god feels very strongly about this issue as he actually wants them dead, and I can prove this by simply pointing to this scripture, furthermore I can support my view as being a light tough, tolerant if you like (just in case) – and also to be supportive of god’s wishes. OK it’s not slaying them as the Lord commands, but surely he can see I am trying to take the intent of his meaning here, so maybe that’s enough not to burn me in Hell for all eternity – right… ?

Seriously:

Some people think like this Z1G – and they think like this, because religious indoctrination frightens them into thinking that the story book of tales is fact, when it is actually just a bit of myth, at best some mistranslated poetry at worst a very poorly edited guideline on life. No supreme being would come out with death statements so flawed as these, especially an omniscient being, because they would know it would be implemented wrong – and indeed it has been many many times. So unless God is a sick fuck and is messing with our heads (or he really means we should kill gays), this can only lead us to conclude that his death statement is actually just a load of shit written by some ignorant git somewhere, that has unfortunately been interpreted as something else (bad isn’t it?).

There are many such examples of texts in the bible that require death (murder) for things like this:

Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests (I am dead)
Kill Homosexuals (Oh no lots of people dead that I know and love)
Kill Fortunetellers (Yep – I agree with that one)
Death for Hitting Dad (I should be dead… oh no my dad i going to hell)
Death for Cursing Parents (I am dead twice)
Death for Adultery (Oh no more dead friends)
Death for Fornication (Oh crap!)
Death to Followers of Other Religions (I’m ok with this one – I think, or though I did use did pray to Jesus when I was 10 years old).
Kill Nonbelievers (I’m dead)
Kill False Prophets (You’re dead)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (that’s a lot of killing in New York!)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (There would be no women left!)
Kill Followers of Other Religions (Global Thermonuclear War?)
Death for Blasphemy (Monty Python would be pleased)
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath (You’re kidding right – it is the only day I get to do my shopping)

I am guessing that all the major religions suffer from the same types of faults- Image if we took them seriously even just a little bit… .opps as it happens society does… shit!

All that atheists do, is point out that these are faults in the texts (human faults), and have no real basis on which real life decisions that affect real people should be enacted.

Is an act being passed in Canada which requires y’all to switch to shari’a law?

Read English.
“Shari’a is incompatible with the foundational principles of western liberal secular democracies.”

How are ‘them muslims’ a threat to you at the present moment?

Read English.
“…and too easily overlook the extremely threatening reality of real world effects caused by the practice of empowering the doctrine we call islam.”

Oh, they’re not? You’re just picking on a minority group cause they have differing views than you do?

Read English, oh fuckwitted one.
“Islam is a problem because it is a doctrine contrary to important secular values we share.”
“…islam in particular is so dangerous to us all by standing contrary to the foundational principles that support the liberal secular democracies we have inherited.”

Oh yeah, you’re right Cedric, that’s totally not bigotry.

Yep, when you read plain English what tildeb wrote is not bigotry.
I don’t create strawmen. I never need to.
Direct quotes? Love ’em. Just love ’em to death.
You have been served yet again on the Internet.

“Shari’a is incompatible with the foundational principles of western liberal secular democracies.”
-No shit, really? And it took you how long to figure this out? However, unless there is a threat of some bill passing or something then this post is pissing in the wind/stating the obvious/and a giant load of bigotry.

As does “Religion Z1G – is a load of bollocks.” as well as “you’ll better understand why many people arrive at the conclusion that religious belief in general and islamic belief in particular is a danger to our common rights and freedoms.”
-Fair enough, you have every right to believe that. However, re-writing history in your puritanical deontological atheist style solves nothing and misses the entire part were the scientific method itself was birthed in religious circles, by religious people, and your beloved secular doctrine was written by a bunch of congregationalists and Unitarians (hi! that’s me!) and is in no danger from a minority group who left their homeland to live in our own because of our own countries awful behavior. First 10 minutes of Argo might help get a grasp on the nasty behavior of our two countries toward countries full of Muslims.

What this is, is simple bigotry. Based on religion. All religious people are stupid! They are a threat! For people who love to cry out for proof, you offer scant on this post. It’s just a feeling. Ooooohhh those religious types are out to get our freedoms! Let’s rant and rave about it. Let’s mask our bigotry and colonialism based on our hatred of religion and esp. of a minority religion which poses no threat. Way to go chaps! Western Democracies can breath a sigh of relief that y’all are defending the homeland. Let’s go out and invade another country of these backward camel jockeys and bring them OUR democracy! Go get ’em cowboys.

Unlike in Britain, that battle has indeed been fought and won. Sharia has no legal status. But the battle continues to be fought daily in homes throughout the country – and thousands of homes in my city where muslims attempt to justify the treatment of others – especially family members – based on it. It is a never-ending battle because too often people hide their inability to produce reasonable justifications for the treatment of others behind it.

Was it wisdom or were you dodging the question? Dodging seems like. And would it intregue you to know that it was the Sufi’s who were the majority religion up until the turn of the last century. Then the shit hit the fan and the militant forms started rising, education started dropping, and once burgeoning democracies went belly-up facist Shari’a. Once again, this is easily found history, even the wiki sites get it mostly right. But fuck all that, you have you’re feelings boys! Great job!

An excellent response from Sam Harris to the charge of racism and islamophobia, as well as previously published materials in response to other charges, here.

“The general blindness of secular academics to the religious roots of Muslim violence is easily explained. As my friend Jerry Coyne once observed, when confronted with a transparently religious motive (e.g. “I will blow myself up to get into paradise”), secular scholars refuse to take it at face value; they always look for the “deeper” reasons—economic, political, or personal—behind it. However, when given economic, political, or personal motives (e.g. “I did it because they stole my family’s land, and I felt totally hopeless.”), these researchers always seem to take a person at his word. They never dig for the religious motive behind apparently terrestrial concerns. The game is rigged. This is how an anthropologist like Scott Atran can interview dozens of jihadists—each of whom rattles on about God and paradise—and come out thinking that the doctrine of Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.”

Z1G insist it’s all about colonialism! See here for the latest colonial problem.

Like a cat in the sandbox trying to cover up it’s own shit. To overlook the “economic, political, or personal motives” and focus solely on “the doctrine of Islam” is beyond ignorant. It’s all about Harris’ and your own bigotry against all things religious.

It’s a feedback loop. Sufi Islam (a mystical, open, and science-friendly version of Islam) was the main type of Islam right up until WWI. Before then, we didn’t have suicidal terrorists. And jihad simply meant “struggle” as in “struggle of the self against sin” or “struggle of the self against temptation.” Until that word got hijacked by the Wahabi and meant “death to all who aren’t Muslim.” You can read all this, as our church is currently doing, in the book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present. Or you can remain woefully ignorant, continue to recast history in your own light, and keeping being bigoted toward religion. I’m going to go with the latter because it’s what you know and what you’re good at.

Or you can check out this talk from Duke, “While nearly six-in-ten seniors agree that Islam is incompatible with American culture and way of life, only thirty-six percent of Millennials–who are more likely to know someone Muslim–agree.”

Your argument without all the fluff is basically: atheists don’t believe in God – therefore they hate people who believe in god, therefore they must be racist.

It is like saying ‘you don’t believe in leprechauns, therefore you must hate the Irish, therefore you are racist’

We get it Z1G, it’s a primitive and childish argument – and can be easily dismissed as stupid.

But when we really think about your racism argument – it is actually more bigoted and racist than anything that could be remotely regarded and islamophobia.

Let’s face it, if little white girls were having their genitals mutilated because of religious indoctrination practices, there would be a public outcry – so actually not calling this stuff out is worse than being racist – because your blinkered thinking and haste to play the offence card has blinded you from the fact that your protest is actually saying ‘hey it’s ok for brown people to be beaten, mutilated and murdered, our white folks are ok.”

Once again, You’re not bigoted because you’re racist, it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the definition of bigotry: “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.”

Not a strawman, it’s what you affirm.

As for “‘hey it’s ok for brown people to be beaten, mutilated and murdered, our white folks are ok.”” that’s what we call a slippery slope as well as a tu quoque fallacy. Nice try though.

You keep making this same mistake repeatedly, Z1G: where’s the intolerance? I know the ‘contempt’ many people have towards religious belief is justified on the grounds that it is equivalent in all ways with delusion. But I have yet to read from any atheist this hatred and intolerance towards people who are religious. Again, you’re mistaking your beliefs about other people with what is true and you seem incapable of appreciating why this tactic retards your ability to comprehend the meaning contained within sentences and paragraphs. You really are way, way off base and you can test this for yourself: name one right and/or freedom any atheist you know wants suspended for the religious?

What you confuse is contempt with intolerance, but those who uphold and try to impose really bad ideas on others to suspend certain civil rights for religious ideology/delusional ravings should be held in utter contempt. That’s not bigotry because there is no intolerance of but respect for the person’s equivalent rights and freedoms. Unlike the atheist community as a whole, the religious tend get this wrong all the time because they seem to believe that non believers are out to get them. But the reverse is almost always the case.

“Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.”

Unfortunately your argument is a very poorly constructed strawman – because it doesn’t even hold together logically on a simple Venn diagram.

You are falling into a mind trap of thinking that secular is them, and religion is us. The set (think Venn Diagram) of secular is the religious AND the non-religious agreeing on the basic fundamental rights that should be enjoyed by all human beings regardless of religion and race – it is exactly the opposite of what you are proposing, in your silly argument.

Every set in the Venn diagram is trumped by the secular, because there are secular people in every religion and secular people in the atheist community. The fact that sets of people do not interact on secular basis is the cause for factions (new sets).

The set of Christian people on the Venn diagram do not all overlap EVEN with other sets of Christian people (i.e. when the non-Christian sets including but not limited to the secular is excluded from the Venn logic).

The controversies in the Anglican Church (bigotry relating to marriage, abortion, homosexuality) demonstrate these factions (sets) are real even within their own ‘flock’ and are caused because the men in funny hats can’t agree, they are intolerant and bigoted even against their own kind. There are no economic factors at play here Z1G, it is just pure belief at work – and that belief is based on made up stuff.

Off topic, Tildeb, but I’m going to post here rather than on Josh’s site. I’m going to try to avoid posting there again (sometimes I post places against my better judgment, long after I’ve concluded it’s pointless). There’s absolutely no arguing with him, and I don’t actually think many other people are reading posts there anyway, meaning it’s just a conversation between you, me and him. Like I said yesterday, there is absolutely no reasoning with him. I keep thinking that I can post there with a quick rebuttal or pointing out of simple facts, but always end up getting snarled up in irrelevant responses from him, his endless requests to jump through extra hoops (“Well just answer THIS point then”) that take you further down rabbit holes. He’s made his mind up on every issue and no amount of evidence will change his mind. I guess people with views like that DO sometimes change their mind, but I’ve done my bit now.

I do find it annoying how he keeps trying to frame it as us being rude to him. His cartoons are pretty inflammatory, and he should expect robust responses from people. You need a thick skin if you’re going to post those type of images. And you’re right that he still doesn’t get what an ad hominem is (he seems to think it’s just any insult). But then again, he never got why his rejection of a response to Mark Regnerus’s study because it came from a website he termed ‘pro-gay’ was just an ad hominem attack…

I’d pretty much got to a point where I was just checking out his site for your responses anyway, so I guess I should just turn up here more regularly.

Now that everything is being moderated at NAA, I suspect what he really desires is an echo chamber and we’re just not playing well with others. Also, the trend is the same at many other religious promoting sites, where criticism of the beliefs is assumed to be a bannable (is that even a word?) offense because it is mistakenly believed to be an ad hominem. Creationists seem to be particularly vulnerable to this confusion and more likely than most to act on it. .And this is exactly what happened over at Tough Questions Answered in case you’re wondering why I no longer show up there responding to some of the more ludicrous assertions. Your commentary there has always been of very high quality and a much needed voice of sanity and reason. Ah, the joys and benefits of moderating.

As Cedric likes to write, the internet is where religions come to die in a free and open exchange of ideas yet I think these faith followers think themselves capable of somehow avoiding this problem by controlling the acceptability of responses. It’s a guaranteed way of losing readership! So, either way, the critics end up winning.

I don’t do a lot of posting here these days so I apologize for my lack of productivity. I do a lot of commenting all over the place. So if you happen to find anything out there in the Great Beyond worth checking out and in need of commentary, please feel free to suggest as much here. I will always take your recommendations seriously. And the same is true for other commentators here. Feel free to make recommendations and point out whatever you find is interesting.

I had to fight very hard not to do a sarcastic version of my last Toughquestionsanswered post. “Yes, how shocking and surprising that Conservative Dennis Prager came out in support of the bible on that Conservative Christian website…”

Just a comment, ZIG claims that Muslims invented zero, and algebra. Well this is far away from the truth. It is true that Arabs came up with zero, but not all Arabs were Muslim. It would be ridiculous to claim that Newton was Christian so Christians came up with the Newtonian Laws. Fellows like Al Razi didn’t buy the BS of religion and he was an accomplished scholar and an Arab.

What is the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims? The difference came I think in the 2nd Caliphate when Ali was murdered and there was a schism between the Uthmans and the Ummayyads on who should be the real caliphate. Are atheists responsible for the fights between Shi’ites and Sunnis? I bet not.

Unless I don’t know what race and racism is, critique of Islam can’t be racism. Muslims come in all shades.

How does a critique of religion become colonialism? I critique Christianity and catholicism [the religion I left] am now a begot for pointing out the problem with religion?

And finally ZIG, there falsafa schools in Muslim tradition were not destroyed by the west but by fundamentalist Muslims.

“And finally ZIG, there falsafa schools in Muslim tradition were not destroyed by the west but by fundamentalist Muslims.”
-NOW THAT IS WHAT I’m FUCKING TALKING ABOUT! Finally someone with an informed opinion on the subject! This is half-true, and it largely depends on which particular school and country you’re talking about since falsafa is a concept and style and it’s alive in well in many muslim countries. Plus it helps to look at who were the fundies funded/backed by at the time? Oops, that’d be U.S. trying to destabilize the Russian mission in Afghanistan or if you’re talking about Iran, it would still be U.S. Hmm… I see a pattern here…

A quick google search is all I ask. All I ask of tildeb is since he’s religiously illiterate, he should get help. And since he’s ignorant, he should open his mind and eyes and ears and learn.

I get a little antsy when marginalized groups get targeted, that includes atheists. I also get a little nervous when others describe another set of the population as cancer. Those would be bigoted statements which have no place in a secular and just society.

“Boston bombings suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev conveyed to investigators that no international terrorist groups were behind the attacks, a U.S. government source told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicated his older brother, Tamerlan, was the driving force behind the attacks and wanted to defend Islam from attack, the source said.”

Let us recall that over a third of British born and raised, university educated, muslims admitted that killing others in defense of the faith was an acceptable motivation. The same assertion by peers – killing in defense of the faith – was not acceptable to over 99% of those raised in various christian denominations in the same poll. Someday, even those like Z1G might actually learn to explain people’s behaviour by their own words and believe them when they say what their motivation is. In the meantime, no doubt he shall continue to feel perfectly justified to correct what’s true.

Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
Paarsurrey says:
There is nothing in Quran/Islam/Muhammad which could make one an extremist.
If you cannot disprove that what I have stated above; then your post is just a hate post.
Please don’t propagate hate; this world needs peace and hate cannot bring peace.

There’s nothing in the koran? Really? Do you honestly believe this assertion of yours? If so, don’t argue with me – someone foolish enough to think based on evidence what significant numbers of muslims tell us they believe; argue with the hundreds of millions of muslims who think you’re are acting contrary to the teachings it contains and doing so repeatedly across the land through your blog and commentary (Sura 5:33-34). Oh wait, maybe that me. Oh well. In either case, take up your insistence of the peacefulness of koranic teachings with them, please, and convince them why and how they are wrong to support in great numbers violence in the name of defending the faith. I will applaud your efforts and hope they cause an effect because without an overhaul of the koran and getting rid of its central message of intolerance and bigotry in the name of god, it shall remain antithetical to western secular liberal values like individual autonomy, human rights, the dignity of personhood outside of religious and other group identities, and equality in law. And this criticism has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with justified true beliefs based on compelling evidence from reality.

I express disbelief at your astounding claim and then provide compelling contrary evidence that shows massive numbers of your brethren do not agree with you. To this, you pretend that I’m saying that you’re not allowed to argue with me. No, I’m pointing out that your assertion is firstly wrong in fact and secondly that you must convince hundreds of millions of your brethren for your assertion to stand. You don’t seem the least concerned that your assertion stands contrary to how hundreds of millions of your brethren understand the koran and many millions use to justify their actions of violence and acts that are clearly contrary to fundamental western secular values like respecting universal human rights, the dignity of personhood unbiased by gender, and no support for equality laws.

About this site

Questionable Motives is a site dedicated to raising important questions in the never-ending battle between rationality and superstition, offering commentary about topical issues, and addressing which of these motivations is truly being served.